AT&T to Target Cord Cutters With Late 2016 Launch of 'DirecTV Now' Streaming Video Service

[mildocjr]

Yeah they already sent me some mail, I called them up, and asked them about their pricing, they told me basic channels with high speed internet for $90. I asked how high speed, they said 6 Mbps. I asked why they were limiting their speeds so much. They said they weren't, so I explained to them I get 300 Mbps for $70 a month and only watch Netflix. It's a shame they just can't compete in the home. Cellular isn't bad if you never have to call support for anything, just wish they'd roll out unlimited plans without throttling users.
[doublepost=1474487617][/doublepost]

But Netflix can't address one important issue to some: immediacy. With Netflix, unless it's a Netflix show, you have to wait until the season ends and the show is released for streaming and DVD/BR.

Not watching a TV show as soon as it airs is not the end of the world, yes, when I first cut cable it was something I had to give up, but in the end, I'm saving almost $100/mo. and still get to watch those same TV shows. For $1,200 extra each year I'll wait and get the added bonus of no commercials right when things get tense.

 

[2010mini]

Air waves and Kodi is their competition (and it's growing) and they don't seem to get it.

OTA has always been there. Kodi is just theft, period.
[doublepost=1474487978][/doublepost]

I'm not sure why you included me on this - I'm not advocating IP theft of any sort, but rather a pay-as-you-go ala carte model.

And I agree with above, I'd rather buy shows than channels.

Not sure why your post was pulled into that exchange either... weird.

 

[bibigon]

OTA = Over the air, just an antenna so cable isn't involved.

My question is really: "Why can I watch whatever I want via cable, in HD, with no buffering as I switch channels, while watching the same content via streaming, requires buffering."
[doublepost=1474488193][/doublepost]

Some, yes, and we do so with Doctor Who since our "package" doesn't include BBCA. Game of Thrones is a counter-example - that has not made available until after each season airs (excepting this year, nearly a year after original air date).

You can just pay for HBO Now however, and watch Game of Thrones that way. You can still buy shows this way, and at $12/month, it's about the same price as paying $3/episode.

 

[Stewie]

My question is really: "Why can I watch whatever I want via cable, in HD, with no buffering as I switch channels, while watching the same content via streaming, requires buffering."

My guess is that with cable they control the entire path from where it originates to your cable box/TV.

With a streaming service there are bottlenecks and congestion everywhere along the internet from the source to your home router/modem.

 

[Juicy Box]

My question is really: "Why can I watch whatever I want via cable, in HD, with no buffering as I switch channels, while watching the same content via streaming, requires buffering."

Because the data of the video you are watching is being transmitted differently. Watching TV via a STB on a particular channel, that channel has its own frequency, and travels from the cable company to your STB and on your screen. The channel is always being broadcast 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The STB is used to decrypt the data that is sent to keep people form stealing cable.

Watching something by streaming, the data packets are traveling all of the place, sometimes into different countries around the world and then into your home.

I tried to be simple with my explanation.

 

[mildocjr]

My question is really: "Why can I watch whatever I want via cable, in HD, with no buffering as I switch channels, while watching the same content via streaming, requires buffering."

Well it's easy, when watching cable, the video stream is being buffered on a server at your cable provider. They have servers that stream every channel then relay that info off to you, when you switch channels you are, in a way, switching which server you are connected to and they relay that information without caching it. An HD stream is about 12.5 Mbps. Since you aren't pausing, rewinding, or fast forwarding there is no need to cache it so it plays instantly. When you record a tv show or movie, the cable box just doesn't clear the cache and instead stores the data on the internal hard drive for later viewing.

When you watch from the web it could do the same, but to prevent the square pixilation from occurring it waits until it has a perfect stream before actually loading the content and then waits a little longer for any hiccups that might occur in the future.

Back before they got rid of analog signals it's the same effect you got when you had a digital stream in one room and an analog stream in another, the sound was off by about 2 seconds.

 

[BeatCrazy]

If you have att wireless and DIRECTV you can already stream through the DIRECTV and NFL Sunday ticket app data free.

Worth repeating, because it appears many people are unaware. So the DIRECTV Now service seems like it will work in the same manner, i.e. AT&T Mobility customers can stream all the streaming TV they want over LTE, originating from the DIRECTV app.

 

[Ken Linger]

A big problem is that we're trusting those who have the most to lose (cable/satellite providers) to make the changes necessary to support cheaper options and true "design your own bundles."

• All cable/satellite providers pad their tiers with programming that they get paid to carry. All those shopping channels, for example, are revenue streams to the provider which is why they're always thrown into the lowest tier. Its why the "40 channels for just $19.99" has maybe 2 channels you'll watch.
• More padding occurs with bilingual channels (most people in the US watch either Spanish or English programming).
• Streaming services immediately look a lot worse when they're crippled by broadcast delays (e.g., new episodes available 1 day/week/season after airing).
• Companies like CBS and their streaming app which is both a pay service (even if you have a paid TV subscription) and includes non-skippable ads. What am I paying for again?
• Many stations that you want own a lot of other stations you may not. Its in their best interest to make sure that if you subscribe to NBC, you also subscribe to SciFi, USA, Telemundo, MSNBC, etc. They're not going to split it up and knock a few dollars off.

Additionally, if you have something like Dish or DirecTV now and are paying $120/month, it would seem that you're getting at least 240 channels at $0.50 each. Logically (but incorrectly) you would assume that "hey, if I pick just the 20 channels I really watch, I should be able to knock that $120 down to $10-$20 a month!" Its never going to happen for the above reasons.

Finally, there's all that crap programming that gets high ratings just because "its something that's on." Someone is watching "House Building Cupcake Wars with the Kardashians" but is anyone willing to pay even $5 for that? Probably not. But, if its bundled with other stations that you are willing to pay for, then yeah, you'll just happen to watch an episode. Its not on anyone's "must have" list, however.

 

[johnnyrb]

I think they should allow current users to use this product without extra fees. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to watch TV when it's raining outside?

 

[Rigby]

1. I'm not interested in channels, I'm interested in shows. Frankly I don't care at all what channel a show is on and any discussion of "channels" is missing the point entirely.
2. I'm not interested in network scheduling. I watch the next episode for a show when I am ready for it and not a minute different.
3. I'm not interested in paying for something that contains commercials. It's an either/or proposition. I don't expect ads in ANY product I pay for.

All of the above concerns are already addressed today by Netflix, etc. If AT&T can't at least match the existing competition then I'm not interested.

Couldn't agree more. I really can't imagine watching on someone elses schedule anymore, and in many cases I couldn't even say what channels produced the shows I watch. But in some ways Hulu is closer to the ideal than Netflix because they get new episodes almost immediately (one day after airing). The downside is that at first episodes are often only available for a few weeks after airing (although they are usually added permanently at a later date). I also like that they give users a choice between ads at a discounted rate and no ads.

 

[Ken Linger]

The downside is that at first episodes are often only available for a few weeks after airing (although they are usually added permanently at a later date)

And that's just more proof that they're not acting in the best interest of their customers but rather the content providers (i.e., the stations). The only reason it would disappear after a few weeks is because they want to make sure that they can still sell pay-per-episode copies (iTunes, etc.) as well as full season DVDs/downloads. This is one of the main reasons I'm not using Hulu--crippling of their own services to appease the providers.

 

[Rigby]

Off-topic, but anyone have an explanation for why this is by the way? Watching something "OTA" (via Cable) is still trasnmitting some quantity of digital data, but there are no real buffering issues or anything of the sort.

The difference is not so much between traditional cable and IP transport, but rather broadcast vs. unicast streaming. Traditional TV utilizes broadcast, i.e. you have one sender and many receivers, so a single stream is shared by many users. Most IP-based OTT streaming services today use unicast streaming, i.e. each user receives an individual stream. This obviously consumes more bandwidth. However, it is possible to run broadcast streams over IP as well. In fact, the cable companies are in the process of converting their TV services completely to IP-based transport.

Big unicast streaming providers like Netflix use extensive content distribution networks (CDNs) to alleviate network congestion. Basically, they place caching nodes containing copies of popular content at strategic locations throughout the Internet. When a customer requests a stream, it does not come from a central server at Netflix, but from a closeby caching node. Netflix and others have shown that unicast streaming can scale to large subscriber numbers using these techniques. The downside is that CDNs don't work well for live content such as sports, since distributing the copies throughout the CDN takes some time. So for such content broadcast streaming remains superior.

 

[vikingjunior]

For those of us that live in skyscrapers that don't allow dishes it's a warm welcome.

 

[Rigby]

And that's just more proof that they're not acting in the best interest of their customers but rather the content providers (i.e., the stations).

If you think any profit-oriented company acts in the best interest of their customers, I have a bridge to sell you. This is just a question of business models.

This is one of the main reasons I'm not using Hulu--crippling of their own services to appease the providers.

Personally I don't think it's a big issue. If I want to follow a show as it's being aired, a few weeks is enough time. If not, I can just wait until the season is permanently added or shows up on Netflix. Besides, not all shows have this kind of limitation.

 

[Ken Linger]

I apologize if I took this somewhat off-topic. In response to the actual thread (and not other responses) I would have to agree that the DirecTV-as-a-streaming-service sounds attractive based solely on the press release. However, it remains to be seen what actual limitations there are so I'm adopting a "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude as to whether or not this is really a game-changer.

 

[benboy12]

They have a 7 day free trial. It's worth a look. Coincidentally, I just decided against continuing my subscription with Sling on Monday after 6 days of the trial. The quality of the video was fine. The price was fine. There were a few hang ups that I just couldn't get over.

1. Most of the content my family would want to watch was on the orange tier, and all of that is confined to a single stream. So if I'm downstairs watching a football game on ESPN my wife cannot be upstairs watching a show simultaneously on HGTV.

2. No DVR capability

3. It still seems very hodge-podgy. Some channels you can rewind, some you can't. There's no real rhyme or reason about which ones can and cannot. Some local channels are available in some markets, some are not (I could personally only get Fox).

Would have saved my family about $60/month over what we have now with DirecTV if we went with Sling and took the orange, blue and sports package. But it just felt a little too half baked at the moment. Just doing a little research on the service it sounds like it has matured a good bit since it started last year, so hopefully it will continue to get better and it, or some other streaming option, will become good enough to get rid of the packaged cable/satellite subscriptions.

Check out PlayStation Vue. It allows for multi streams, has a cloud DVR function, has more channels, and is only a little bit more than sling.

I cancelled my cable for their smallest package which is about 55 channels for $30 a month with no taxes/fees. I haven't looked back.

 

[ForTozs]

They aren't gonna charge data for their streaming service? Watch what happens. They are going to dramatically jack up their usage rates for internet. So AT&T data subscribers are gonna pay more to Stream their Hulu, Netflix, HBO, etc. It's not about giving the customer what they want, which would be per channel access. It's about snuffing out the competition. Television packages are of zero interest to me. I can get just about everything I want through Netflix, Hulu, HBO, CBS, and my antenna. My only real interest would be in ESPN, and yes, I would expect to pay more than $10/mo. So what if some channels cost more? It still makes the most sense. For now I'll steal my ESPN coverage. Its not that I'm not willing to pay, its that the offer me no other way for me to get their content. Sure, I'm a thief, criminal, whatever you want to call me. But if you look at the bigger picture, the consumers are holding the leverage here. The television networks are catching on. It's the providers that need to get with the times.

 

[Defthand]

Featuring "very, very aggressive price points"...

Don't hold your breath, folks. There's not a single AT&T product or service that is competitively priced. Besides, in the traditional cable/satellite business model—and this is no different—the networks decide what their content is worth.


"...the service is said to include more than 100 premium channels..."

100 premium channels? Define premium. The majority of cable networks are indistinguishable and have just one flagship program, if that (see the Emmys).

"...all of the... customer service... is done digitally, reducing the need for more traditional tech support."

You can believe this. You thought Time Warner was bad! AT&T's tech support is notoriously frustrating because they rely on chatbots to handle complaints.

 

[ActionableMango]

Featuring "very, very aggressive price points"...

Don't hold your breath, folks.

Technically, $500 per month would be a very, very aggressive price point.

 

[Mtmspa]

You still can't beat PlayStation Vue. Tomorrow PlayStation is letting you watch it on multiple devices at once. If you have 4 Rokus you can watch 4 streams and so on. Also if you're a PS plus subscriber you get $10 off your fee every month. They are also rolling out a yearly package that will save you over a $100 a year. Plus PlayStation Vue's cloud DVR is insane. I can record 10 or more shows at once. Also PlayStation Vue is coming to Apple TV on 9/30 so that's a big plus.

After having Directv for many years, I switched to Sling on my Apple TV and iPad Pro. Works great and am saving $70 a month. Was going to look at Vue, but don't have a device to sign up, which seems like dumb requirement and they didn't have the ATV option. Might have to take a look again if this is true.

 

[44267547]

I'm intrigued, since I have AT&T phones, but so far most of these cord cutting packages sound good in theory but end up providing a fractured experience with a lot of gaps. Fios is brutally expensive, but the service is good and I get a complete set up without too much hassle. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I am not optimistic this will be workable.

Especially for how expensive Cable has increased. And Cable companies need to offer the customer an affordable and efficient manner to enjoy their current programming.

 

[Mtmspa]

I can find nothing about Vue on ATV other than a Engadget rumor...

 

[stonefeet]

Once Twc upgraded us to maxx (just before charter killed all the upgrades) we ditched DIRECTV for PlayStation vue and haven't missed a beat with what we watch and saved over 100 per month in the process

Sure I miss out on football but I signed up for the NFL package so I watch the replays later in the evening, it's not as fun as live but it's sure a hell of a lot cheaper.

The only thing that bugs me about vue is say you record a live event and it runs long, you're screwed. Other than that it's entirely worth the savings.

 

[KeepDrinkinTheKoolAid]

Pricing as already been revealed. For the 40 Channel Tier it's $25. For the 75 Channel Tier it's $40 and for the 100 Channel Tier which includes locals and ESPN and local sport stations cost $55

Link? As far a I know you are just making up false information.

You still can't beat PlayStation Vue. Tomorrow PlayStation is letting you watch it on multiple devices at once. If you have 4 Rokus you can watch 4 streams and so on. Also if you're a PS plus subscriber you get $10 off your fee every month. They are also rolling out a yearly package that will save you over a $100 a year. Plus PlayStation Vue's cloud DVR is insane. I can record 10 or more shows at once. Also PlayStation Vue is coming to Apple TV on 9/30 so that's a big plus.

Link once again?
I have PS Vue and the max amount of devices you can have streaming is 5. You don't get $10 off your fee every month, and I know since I am also a PS plus subscriber. Other than what you said about dvr you are just telling lies or you believe in small rumors. As far as I know there is no discount for ps vue monthly or a yearly package nor has there been any announcement on Vue coming to apple TV on the 30th.
Stop spreading false information.

 

[Huntn]

Hopefully with better pricing, content, and UI than Sling.tv. Cancelled that after about 5 minutes.

Not to be argumentative, but I who like SlingTV would like to know what your primary issue with it was? Although not ala cart, the true goal of cable cutters, it seems like a great deal to me, is a step in the right direction, allows me to up my internet speed and go to unlimited data while saving about $50 a month in the process.